@david_ross
(and by "you" I don't mean you specifically)

@david_ross @Wolf480pl I think writing to learn is a valid activity. As such, the audience is incidental. Keeping a diary online invites people to read it but does not automatically invite them to comment or ask questions even the medium affords just that. Public activities are not always invitations. Conversely, I’m happy to ignore or unfollow where my mental model does not fit what other people use the medium for.

@kensanata @david_ross
IOW,
1. wanting to publish one's thoughts,
2. and caring that people read it,
3. but not caring if they understand it,1
4. and explicitely not wanting them to reply,
is a valid usecase in your opinion?

Or should point 2 be:
2. not caring if people read it
?

@Wolf480pl @david_ross Both are valid use-cases. The important part is that nowhere does it say that others (us) need to read it. Anyway. I guess what I wanted to say is that it try not to jump into conversations with strangers because so often it doesn’t always go well. On the one hand that’s sad but on the other hand it’s understandable because of the expectation mismatch I described. So it can’t be helped.

@kensanata @david_ross
I think it could be helped.
First of all, post followers-only if you don't want strangers jumping in.
The main case of strangers jumping in, from my perspective, is after a boost.

Furthermore, we could have some checkbox on whether a post is meant to invite discussion, or if the person just expects confirmation.

@kensanata @david_ross

Finally, if a person is doing advocacy, i.e. trying to spread their opinions and convince others to share their ideas, then we should discuss that person's opinions, even if that person explicitely doesn't want discussion.

A position of "hey everyone listen to me, you must agree with me, if you don't agree with me you musn't reply or I'll call it harassment" is IMO unacceptable.
Ofc it's exaggerated, I haven't seen it happen like this.

@Wolf480pl @david_ross True, but they can still say they don’t want to hear it (“don’t @ me”). I think we should just accept this and move on. What’s the point in fighting this attitude? Just unfollow (or block if necessary). Yes, I dislike the attitude. But I’m not going to change their mind. Some likes an aspect of Marxism and I reply that Marx was wrong here and there – was this the conversation they wanted to have? Probably not. 1/2

@Wolf480pl @david_ross So write about Marx in a separate post, don’t reply to their post, and probably don’t mention them, either, and your freedom to discuss ideas does not infringe on their freedom to be left alone, nor on their freedom to say whatever they want.
Unless somebody is wrong on the Internet, of course. 😜

@Wolf480pl @david_ross Any moment now David is going to post “please untag me!” 😄

@kensanata @david_ross
IMO people seeing their post should also see the counterarguments.

So a reply w/o mentioning the OP would be a good middle ground IMO.

Also, if you write a separate post, people reading it won't see the context of what you're replying to.
Also, maybe in this case the OP wanted to be part of that discussion?

@Wolf480pl @david_ross I think this is impossible to know unless you know the person or you’ve asked them. It would certainly be nice to know, though.

@kensanata @david_ross hence, an advisory (as in, being only an indicator) "venting/shouting at clouds/no comments pls" flag would be helpful.

@kensanata

IMO, an advisory "venting/shouting at clouds/no comments please" flag, and an enforced "don't at me/disable notifications from this post" checkbox (like "mute conversation", but before posting, next to the "CW" button) would be a good solution.

@kensanata
To sum up, I think that:
- People should make posts followers-only if they don't want comments from strangers, or don't want comments at all.
- There should be a way to mark post as "venting/no comments please" and this indication should be clearly visible to everyone responding.
- There should be a way to mute a conversation before it starts, i.e. have a toggle below the input box for "don't send me any notifications relating to the post I'm about to make"

@Wolf480pl @kensanata is great for this :D

@maloki Hm. An interesting convention. I fear that’s too subtle, though. Have you used it much? Or is it new? I hadn’t seen it before. And I only understood what it showed when I replied and saw the the text between the two colons. I’d also like client support, eventually.

@kensanata It's a custom emoji on this server.

And when I've used it it's mostly been good results from it. :)

@saper
I'd rather suggest writing straight to /dev/null, and this idea has bounced a few times around the fediverse,
but @kensanata says wanting people to read your posts but not caring if they understand is a valid usecase.
IMO it's a bit of an exhibitionism, but I don't have any arguments why it wouldn't be a valid usecase, and adding the flags I suggested doesn't seem like much work (unless your code is a mess), so why not support that usecase too?

@saper @kensanata
>Also on the protocol level nothing prevents anyone from sending a reply.

Yes. And I explicitely do not suggest making it possible to disable replies.
It should be possible to advise users that you do not want to be part of a discussion, so that they don't _accidentally_ annoy you because they thought you wanted a discussion.

@saper @kensanata
Also, on protocol (actually, server implementation) level, it is possible to mute notifications coming from a sub-thread, so it should be possible to mute notifications from all replies to your post (not just a subtree), before those replies happen.

@saper @kensanata
Right now if there's a reply to your post, you can click on the "..." in the anotifications command, and choose "mute conversations", which will mean that you, and only you, will stop getting notifications from that subthread from now on.
What I propose is allowing to use this feature on your top-level post, preferably at the exact moment of posting it.

@saper @kensanata
s/reply to your post/any post mentioning you/

@Wolf480pl @kensanata why would you make a toot then?

Scream into a pilloe instead or something

@saxnot I have no idea. But apparently some people prefer screaming on socnets rather than screaming to /dev/null.
Ask @kensanata

@saxnot @Wolf480pl Why not? I see people having this urge and it doesn’t hurt me to have them do it as nobody is forcing me to follow. What about all the people that write blog posts without comments? All the Google+ posts with comments disabled? I don’t like it and unfollow anybody who does it, but what I surely won’t do is butt into conversations (or monologues) where I am not wanted.

@Wolf480pl @david_ross sometimes it’s also hard to know what they were trying to actually say. They say Mastodon is run by a technocrat. Do they want to learn about GitHub issues? Patreon? Self-hosting? Learning to code? Pleroma or Friendica? Technocracy? Silicon Valley? Bro culture? It’s hard to know. Venting makes me wary because of that.

@kensanata @david_ross
btw. one of my flatmates often vents about how $X is stupid, where $X is something like debian or systemd or sth.
Sometimes, I telling him that "no you just can't use it, shut up and listen, it works like this and this and it fuckin' makes sense because of $Y" actually helps.
But it heavily varies on a case-by-case basis, so I wouldn't attempt that with a stranger on the internet.

@Wolf480pl @kensanata @david_ross
> Also, maybe in this case the OP wanted to be part of that discussion?

This! If someone disagrees with me, I want to know why. I want to read and think about their counter-arguments. I want to skim the links they offer as references. IMHO this kind of #P2P mutual education is the only thing that makes #SocialMedia anything other than a noisy waste of time.

@Wolf480pl @kensanata @david_ross
> I haven't seen it happen like this.

I've seen this plenty on the fediverse. I get shit for striking up a conversation when I disagree with the original post (however respectfully), but I've *never* seen the same people get upset when "strangers" post replies that agree with their OP.

@strypey @Wolf480pl @david_ross I’m not surprised. Of course a stranger coming up to me saying “I agree” is something I will nod to where as somebody coming up to me and saying “I disagree and here’s why: ...” is when I’ll say “Do I know you? Go away!” I find that absolutely understandable.

@kensanata @strypey @david_ross
yet you keep doing it. You keep saying you disagree.

@Wolf480pl @strypey @david_ross same here. I hope you see the difference between the situation. My point is that this has to be navigated. Starting conversations with strangers is not as simple as you two would make it seem. In my case, right now, your approach is fine. But we all need to keep in mind that not every conversation is the same.

@kensanata @strypey @david_ross
I can see the difference now, but I had no way to tell it when making my first reply. I only see the difference _after_ making the decision.
Also, I cannot define a predicate that will detect the difference. I can't draw a line.
Which IMO means we need more explicit information from a sender whether (and what kind of?) dicussion is welcome.

@kensanata @strypey @david_ross
Or at least an explicit notification next to the post button that "by clicking you agree to get comments from strangers"

@kensanata @Wolf480pl @david_ross if what you're saying is that when communicating with random strangers on the internet, it's hard to always keep it pleasant and constructive, then we agree. For sure. I wonder if the point of difference is where we think responsibility lies for each person's experience of that?

@strypey @Wolf480pl @david_ross I see there are two ways the situation can develop: those who don’t want to read your comment can go somewhere else, or you can take your comment somewhere else. One requires you to change, one requires the other to change. One leads to less people being in this community (them, and eventually their friends). Clearly the other offers better outcomes, and is entirely up to you. 🤔

@kensanata @Wolf480pl @david_ross think this a little black and white. I think what we're suggusting is people post their private venting or hold sensitive private discussions somewhere else, and use the elevator for travelling between floors. But yes, I agree that once it become clear all-comers discussion/ critical dialogue is unwelcome, it's best to move on and talk to someone else. I tend to take unreasonable aggression as a #RedFlag, and unfollow people.

@kensanata @Wolf480pl @david_ross as I've noted elsewhere, I think the super-busy #UX of vanilla #Mastodon amplifies (if not creates) the problem. Almost every person who's lost their shit at me for chiming in has been on a Mastodon instance. Having no way to navigate away from that notifications column is so in-your-face, it was making me feel anxious and grumpy until I decamped to #Pinafore.

@strypey Hm, interesting question whether the UI reinforces this... I have no idea. I never thought of it before. I also use a single column app on my phone most of the time, so I can't tell whether I'm more tense at the desktop.

@kensanata would be an intriguing #UX test get a bunch of users to toggle back and forth between multi-column and single-column, keeping track of when they are using which. Then see if there's any detectable increase in volatility or aggressiveness of posting when using the multi-column layout. I find it infuriating, and definitely got more aggro as a result before I returned to my usual chill status on #Pinafore

@strypey Heh, unfollowing is my favourite conflict handling technique. 😀

@kensanata despite inviting challenges and dissent, I also make judicious use of muting and even blocking. No idea is illegal, but that doesn't mean I have to put up with the output of other people's bad moods. That shit gets piped to /dev/null but quick ;) I regularly clear my mute and block lists though, after a sufficient cooldown period, and I really like 'mute conversation' as a non-nuclear option for temporarily enraged people.

@strypey I admire your clearing of mute and block lists. I just keep accumulating people. 🙄

@Wolf480pl @david_ross expectations made explicit via a checkbox sounds interesting. Like the “no comments” posts on Google+.

@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl > Public activities are not always invitations.

If, as the famous maxim goes, "the medium is the message", posting on a medium expressly designed for low-effort interaction is an invitation to interact, whether people intend that or not. If people aren't inviting comments, why post on a federated #microblog? Why not a normal blog with comments turned off?

@strypey @david_ross @Wolf480pl Why force your will on them and insist that you are right and they are wrong? What purpose do you achieve except pushing them away? They still don’t want to talk and now the world has more unhappiness than before. The smart thing to do is to tread (thread?) carefully.

@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl
Hey! You disagreed with what I said in my post! I never invited you to do that! I never even invited you to talk to me. You nasty stalker. Arrrghhhh!!! (see what I did there?)

@strypey @david_ross @Wolf480pl I sure do. Do you want me to block you? I’m sure you can see the difference. 😜

@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl I think a huge part of the current Masto-drama results from people joining what they think is a little private club (something like an invite-only mailing list or Loomio group), but is actually a huge public #BarCamp, where the purpose of being here is to connect and learn, and the social norm is to strike up conversations with strangers in the coffee queue.

@strypey @david_ross @Wolf480pl I think your prescribing the metaphor, the purpose and the social norm, here. And that’s exactly the problem. We need to find ways for multiple metaphors, purposes and social norms to be acceptable without leading to expectation mismatch.

@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl
If someone gets in an elevator, and gets grumpy at anyone who tells them it's only good for going up and down, for "prescribing the metaphor, the purpose and the social norm" *shrug*, they're going to have a bad time in elevators, and so is anyone who finds themselves in an elevator with them. Not sure if anything can be done about that.

@strypey @david_ross @Wolf480pl Some people in elevators like to stare into empty space and others don’t mind a little chat. To know the difference and act accordingly is how we increase good times in elevators.

@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl LOL I get the point you are trying to make. I guess I can only refer back to my "the medium is the message" comment, and maybe @Wolf480pl 's comment here
https://pinafore.social/statuses/100182590299687034
If a stranger talked to me in an elevator (or on the bus), I would be surprised. Not so in a public bar, especially when there's a band playing. Horses for courses.